FOTF reveals fundamentalist agenda in latest anti-gay campaign

Just when the legislature in Albany legalised same-sex marriage, making New York state the sixth and largest US state (so far) to do so, Focus on the Family in Singapore launched another anti-gay campaign. They distributed two booklets over the last weekend to several other churches. At least one church has reportedly stuffed the lot in a corner refusing to redistribute the publications to its congregation. It probably recognised the campaign for what it was: an unchristian attempt to demean other people.

A heading inside one of the two booklets was dripping with irony. It said “Re-establishing honesty and accountability”.

This is coming from an organisation that believes in stealth tactics. It has not been honest about what it’s about, regularly presenting itself as a non-religious group that seeks to promote family life. Our compliant mainstream media has often re-printed their disclaimer that they are non-religious. Our Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports closes one eye and takes their word at face value, giving them legitimacy and support like they would to any secular organisation.

Do a websearch of Focus on the Family’s Singapore website, and you will see the extreme care they have taken not to breathe a word about their religious affiliation.

Even in their anti-gay agenda through the years, they like to present themselves as arguing against homosexuality (more accurately: arguing for the persecution of gay people through social and legal measures) from the standpoint of “family values”. Hogwash. Focus on the Family is an organisation dedicated to the pursuit of political Christianity, i.e. aiming to entrench fundamentalist Christian values as dominant values in whichever society they operate in, and to influence governmental policy and legislation accordingly. The effect on families with gay children is disastrous.

The booklets they have been distributing are evidence of their strong connections with rightwing Christianity, for in them they make no bones about what they’re about. The language used in the text echoes that used by the religious rightwing of America. The viewpoints expressed are taken from the same script as the anti-gay campaigns spearheaded by conservative US churches. Most damningly, littered throughout the text are references to the Christian god, Jesus and prayer.

But you can bet that the next time the Straits Times interviews them, they will once again deny they are a religious group, let alone one with a political agenda.

Here’s the cover of the first booklet:

On the inside front cover, Focus on the Family Singapore is clearly indicated. This positioning indicates that it is the responsible party.

The booklet begins by bemoaning the modern world. Television glamourises homosexuality, it says. Fashion is promoting androgynous styles. There are (gasp!) such things as unisex clothing, and “even perfumes that men and women wear”.

Read between the lines, and it reveals why certain conservative groups such as Focus on the Family are so terrified of the issue. It is not really homosexuality per se that makes them hyperventilate, it is the idea that ultimately men and women are equal, that men are not superior to women. How else could one explain their fixation with unisex clothing? Homosexuality blurs this distinction between maleness and femaleness and shows up the absurdity of any dogma that insists that one gender is so distinctive from the other that it should be invested with greater valence and authority. It’s patriarchy under threat again.

More to the point, the text says on page 3:

There are several myths regarding homosexuality currently circulating the globe and making their way to your ears. This booklet will help you debunk the myths and give you the facts on the issues surrounding homosexuality. . .

Then it goes on to muddle your brain with “facts” that are myths and try to tell you that well-accepted facts are actually “myths”. As an example of the latter, virtually all reputable researchers in social science and neurology today agree that sexual orientation is an immutable trait — a hundred years of research has yet to produce a single instance where someone’s sexual orientation is shown to have changed — but the booklet insists that it is not a fixed trait. To achieve this argument, Focus on the Family performs a series of logical tricks.

1. It first rephrases the statement “sexual orientation is an immutable trait” to “born this way”. The meaning is thus shifted and a strawman is created.

2. It then quietly assumes that “born this way” means genetic causation. Again, the meaning is shifted.

3. It then marshals arguments that show that there is no 100% correlation between genes and homosexual orientation. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Homosexuals cannot possibly be born this way.

4. Therefore it can’t be a fixed trait because it cannot be inherited. (But who ever said anything about inheritedness?)

Other citations it brings up include some by the laughing stock institute called NARTH — the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. This American outfit was set up by rightwing Christian groups to give a scientific gloss to their political agenda, but the very name of the organisation tells you that it aims to “cure” homosexuals. The science they do is considered disreputable since it is meant to serve dogma.

Spreading falsehood is one thing, but by the end of the first booklet — the inside back cover — its aim is clear. The recommended help is that of conversion therapy — snake oil and hocus pocus denounced by mental health professionals. Such attempts always fail (sexual orientation is immutable, after all). However, at the start, the patients are led to believe they can and will change, but when they finally realise it will never happen, they end up blaming themselves for failure and become more depressed than ever. Many commit suicide. People who sell conversion therapy are ethically culpable for the consequences, but of course they disclaim all responsibility.

Conversion therapy is unique to fundamentalist Christianity. It’s their attempt to dress up their hate campaign as one of “love” and “help”.

The second booklet is where the religious angle takes centrestage. “How should we respond?” is the title, and one should stop and wonder who the “we” is.

Once again, the inside front cover clearly indicates that Focus on the Family Singapore is responsible for this booklet.

Within its pages, there is no shortage of references to Christianity despite Focus on the Family’s insistence that it is a non-religious organisation. Page 11 has one such example, but even more interestingly, it speaks of “moderate homosexuals”:

What are those creatures? I guess it means gay people who acquiesce to their second-class status and do not demand their rights.

On the inside back cover, it says that

At Focus on the Family . . . it’s our goal and privilege to share with everyone the transforming power of God’s love . . . through the unconditional love and grace of Jesus Christ.

And still, they will claim they are a non-religious group.

Then again, maybe they are, because what they have set out to do — to demean and stigmatise other human beings, to bend truth and facts, to lie about their motives — is something no religion worthy of respect should be doing.

I don’t get this requirement for groups to be officially recognised before they can exist. Well, maybe regarding criminal secret societies given the regional history. But isn’t it all a bit anachronistic?

In the pure libertarian sense, which American politics – mostly if not only – tends to subscribe to, I would similarly agree to an an anti-gay club’s right to exist. But my problem with the libertarian viewpoint is that it is pure political theory that is completely oblivious to the ground reality.

Incidentally, law and legislation is in a strong part a response to ground reality.

It would be nice – ideal – if anything uttered by any anti-gay club could be met with an equally vociferous gay rights one, rights that extend into our social rights. Equally forceful in frequency, numbers, and most importantly, official support and all that entails.

But that’s an ideal which falls far short of the reality

In the strictest conformity to constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law, an interpretation which many other jurisdictions other than the American one prefers, an anti-gay club promotes harm towards a vulnerable group, a group vulnerable to atrociities that include hate crimes like murder committed against it and that has a strong correlation with publicly expressed hate against this group.

I guess that in the final analysis, the question should be whether any government should have any role in this, roles that include public funding and official endorsement of harm towards any one group of citizens. (By “harm”, I also include psychological and emotional harm.)

Incidentally, I posted this topic on Chan Chun Sing’s FB page because it was relevant to his ministry.

I disagree. Anti-gayness should be treated like anti-islam or anti-black. In theory, it sounds alright to allow for an alternative viewpoint. But in reality, because of the hate messages that it will generate towards a certain group of people, it will bring forth a lot of harm.. If a person has anti-gay views, it is sufficient to have those views studied in public institutions such as schools and universities

I beg to differ. Human rights work within the limits of not harm to others. “Anti Gay” sounds like removing the existence of gay.
If we’re looking at groups that be upfront and honest about their cause or agenda, IMHO, govt shouldn’t restrict, no matter how un-mainstream they appear to be… provided these groups do not deny the rights of other to choose not to subscribe to their cause.

No doubt this is a response to the great success of the Pink Dot event.

I’ve always been very surprised that a secular society like SIngapore has allowed the local branch of what is an extreme religious international hate organisation into its schools and given them government money.

These leaflets sound similar in nature to the fundamentalist Christian comic books that spread myths about muslims, which resulted in the arrest of the the distributors in SIngapore. The legality of the leaflet should be checked, with particular regard to defamation of the LGBT community.

Is FOTF a charity in Singapore? If so, are its actions and campaigns consistent with charitable status?

Agree. There is a reason, one of public order to insist that the state remains secular. But there are religious groups within this pluralistic society who want to make the state belongs to one of a particular religious persuasion.

Although Singapore is a secular state, there are still many who are conservative. The sexual conservatism is legacy of our colonial history, not a result of our mainstream Asian cultures, as wrongly believed to be so. For example, in traditional Chinese texts, there was no condemnation of homosexual practices. In fact, homosexuality was presented as human reality. Conservatives were brought up wrongly to believe that homosexuality was part of Western degradating influence but they could find no ideological foundation for their beliefs in Chinese cultures. They would therfore welcome it in the form that is from the religious right in the West, even though they might not be Christians themselves. Spreading myths about Muslims is not approved because some Muslims will riot if persecuted. The same thing is hardly heard of among homosexuals.. The implicit approval by some members of the authority toward FOTF reflected this conservatism.

The double standards our society lives with is mindboggling.. how is it that leaflets to ‘teach/educate’ the masses that homosexuality is wrong can be allowed, whereas any attempts to let people know the truth would be clamped down? That these shadow religious organizations operating behind secular ‘masks’ are allowed to by our government is infuriating.
What I would give to see an obviously taoist group try that by ‘teaching’ the best way to ‘correct’ homosexuality is 3 joss-sticks and a dragon candle everyday.. and then deny they are a religious organization, just focusing on the family.
Although I am personally atheist, I am unhappy with the way Christian organizations are allowed to get away with stuff that would never have been allowed by other religious groups, including the relentless persecution of homosexuals by misleading the general populace. In fact, I do not see (might just be that I’m not looking) other religions clamping down so hard on homosexuality. What exactly is their problem?

I was poking around FOTF Singapore’s website and noticed that the “No Apologies” sexual education programme is run by them. This programme was actually a compulsory “life skills” course at my JC, but I managed to wiggle out of attending it.

Nonetheless, I am very concerned that Christian fundamentalists are being invited into secular schools, and students are being forced to attend their indoctrination programmes. I think sometimes the schools themselves are unaware of the links between these organisations and Christian fundamentalism.

It is disgusting that FOTF Singapore is resorting to such stealth tactics to invade our schools and secular space. They should come clean about their fundamentalist Christian beliefs and let the public decide whether it wants to support their programmes.

Defnitely a response to Pink Dot and also the backlash against Vivian and his smear campaign. FOTF and the right wingers have probably realised that their fight in the ‘secular’ world is a lost cause; they have seen more and more support for the LBGT, especially among the young, and even among their own religious brethren, so the push now is to harden their base and hopefully they will still be able to wield enough power and influence over the governing elite (which has a disproportionate number of christians).

So now their true colours are revealed – not only to the christians but also to the general public. It would be interesting to see how MCYS and Today newspaper and ST deals with this, esp now that Vivian is no longer a power that the FOTF can depend on. They probably have to center their efforts on a new christian minister to push their agenda in the corridors of power – and there are m,any for them to select from.

that is because FOTF, as much as you guys never want to admit, does more things than publish anti-gay pamphlets. It also performs useful charitable services like post-abortion counselling, marriage counselling, childcare and support for rehab of drug-addicts and smoking-addicts and alcoholics. That is why the MCYS closes one eye; besides as you all are no doubt aware, gay rights are not high on the MCYS’s agenda to begin with. Racial and Religious harmony are more important than gay rights (to MCYS and MOE).

The image you give of FOTF in your article is misleading, Alex. You miss the forest of the trees. Talking about which, everyone has their own conception of family values. Hogwash it may be to you, but it is not hogwash to many other people.

Your argument about FOTF’s argument is also a strawman. Since “gay gene theory” is still in the vogue, FOTF is trying to present an argument against that. I am sorry but I don’t see how “genetic heritability” differs from “born this way”; honestly, if you have given up “gay gene theory”, I would be really surprised and enquire as to what you replace it with.

Plus, bandwagon fallacy at the beginning of the article: Just because Albany, NY, has done some kind of change in their laws doesn’t indicate that we need do the same. So, contrasting FOTF with the City of Albany’s decision is not very useful; FOTF in Albany probably has a similar stance to FOTF in Singapore, and possibly worse.

By the way, how can Albany push through that bill when Perry versus Swarzenegger is still underway in the Supreme Court?

Roger has white hair. Was he born that way? Can he will his hair to revert back to the same colour as when he was a child? He can dye his hair, but does dying make an immutable trait mutable? Or does it merely cover up an immutable trait?

Beth speaks English and Spanish. She is unable to hear/recognise tones in Chinese and Vietnamese, and try as she might, she’ll never be as able as native Chinese and Vietnamese speakers to do so. Her language limitation is generally accepted as something intrinsic to her (a result of her personal linguistic history), not something mutable, and others make allowances for that when she is travelling in China and Vietnam. Was it an inherited trait?

Edith is short-sighted. Was she born sight-sighted? Short of lasik surgery, she cannot do anything about it body-wise. But is not lasik surgery akin to wearing glasses or dying one’s hair — an extrinsic correction to an intrinsic trait? Yet, is short-sightedness is pure genetic, inheritable trait?

See how foolish it is to reduce complex human phenomena to genetic/non-genetic? Inheritable/non-inheritable?

“Suppose Edith is homosexual. She was not born homosexual. Short of corrective therapy, she cannot do anything about it. FOTF (claims to) have the corrective therapies to help her overcome her homosexuality.

“Roger is a homosexual. He can marry a wife, has children, but still struggles with homosexual desires. With therapies and support offered by FOTF, Roger can live a normal, heterosexual life.”

Actually, I can’t see anything wrong with a company advertising to Edith and Roger. They are free to give FOTF a try. I am curious about the risk of failure and any consumer protection clause. What is their (earthly) profit margin for selling such service?

There is real danger of market failure to buy a service and then the service fails and all the liability befalls upon the buyer who is not given adequate information.

So well, caveat emptor, since the MCYS or the regulating authority is closing one eye. By the way, can the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore choose to close one eye too?

I feel that there are so many flaws in your post which I feel that should be pointed out.

Let’s start with what FOTF does. Even if they “performs useful charitable services like post-abortion counselling, marriage counselling, childcare and support for rehab of drug-addicts and smoking-addicts and alcoholics”, it does not absolve them of misleading the public with hogwash on homosexuality.

Simple case in logic, a philantropist still has to go to jail for any crime even if he has done a million good deeds. Again, going for the tree in that forest is nothing wrong. That tree is rotten, and needs to be cut down.

It is true that everyone has their own concept of family. So why does FOTF need to spread their version around to demean others’ version of the word family? Aren’t you shooting yourself in the leg here? You managed to turn it around and make it seem like Alex is trying to spread hogwash when he is merely stating what deplorable actions FOTF has done. Shame on you.

The truth is, FOTF is not presenting any arguments. They have deem their information FACTS and perpetuate scientifically proven (over many many years) knowledge as myths.

As for your claim on bandwagon fallacy, I fail to see any of that. What I understood from the 1st paragraph is the progress others have made which FOTF is trying to regress on. No where in the article did Alex mention anything on requesting Singapore to change her laws. It was a comparision and only that. Throwing up bogeymen claims is just exasperating for informed readers.

Your ending statement is laughable. Ever heard of multitasking? Since when was the pushing of bills a mono-action that has to be completed before another can be done?

Clement, others have adequately answered your point about the other things that FOTF may be engaged in.

It’s perhaps worth noting that FOTF in America appears to have become more moderate since it got rid of its founder, James Dobson. FYI, that’s the guy reported as saying in his books that children should be beaten like dogs. Are those the “family values” espoused by FOTF in Singapore? In Singapore they still seems to be obsessed with homosexuality and with misinforming people about it in order, presumably, to fit it into its template regarding sin and free will, which inconveniently for them doesn’t sit well with the actual facts. So, what the hell, they just change the “facts” !

As for your point on genetics, you are misinformed (by FOTF, I guess). Someone referred you to the definition of congenital. Do look at that. Studies 10 years ago showed that hormone levels in the womb during pregnancy can affect the sexual orientation of the child.

According to the organisation that monitors all hate groups in America, some anti gay groups there concentrate on defamation of gays, using name calling, accusing them of wanting to “convert” the children of straight people, spreading disparaging “facts” about gays that are simply untrue, in much the same way that some “scientific” people wrote about non-white races in the past.

Groups that propagate known falsehoods about gays (or other minorities), get listed as hate groups. Groups that simply consider homosexuality as “unbiblical” don’t qualify as hate groups. If the leaflet in question does propagate known falsehoods, it is unquestionably hate literature. If that is the case, is the charity (I assume it is one) exceeding its permitted activities?

As for the State of NY permitting equality of marriage for gay people, and it’s relationship to the Perry case , you have misunderstood, Clement. The Perry case is about whether a ban is unconstitutional, not about whether allowing equality is unconstitutional. They are opposite scenarios.

I believe some people are also misunderstanding what is meant by interplay between genetic and environmental factors in this context. It means uterine environment. The Royal College of Psychiatrists states:

“Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is. Thus LGB people have exactly the same rights and responsibilities concerning the expression of their sexuality as heterosexual people.” (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf)

I don’t believe there has been any sound evidence that any other environmental factors, i.e. outside the uterus, play a part in establishing a person’s sexual orientation. So it is indeed correct to say that people are born that way. This goes some way to allaying the unfounded fears of some parents that children can somehow be influenced into becoming gay.

Speaking from my liberal stance, I believe that they should be allowed to exist and espouse their hate speech, as freedom of speech is an absolute right. However, from a practical perspective, such unbridled hate speech is detrimental to societal cohesion, and makes a mockery of the value of fair treatment towards all social groups.

They are not dissimilar to the Nazis. The latter persecuted a specific racial group, while the former is seeking to persecute a specific gender-orientation group. In Germany, the Nazis are banned.

I agree with this liberal stance that they should be “allowed” to exist. Of course, nobody really needs permission to express their opinion and gather like-minded individuals to make their voice louder.

The way to make sure of a balanced perspective is not to banish the “unsafe” or “unsavoury” but to allow different opinions to flourish. Who are we to decide which is “correct” and which is not?

By the way, the Nazis persecuted more than just one ethnicity or religious group. The Jews were just the most publicized victims. Communists, homosexuals, Roma and Sinti, intellectuals and other political opponents were also sent away to the concentration camps.

And banning them hasn’t helped, there are still pockets around who express similar views. Everything in excess is a problem – are we going to ban all “negative influences” and live in isolation? We need to know of their existence to develop our own opinions.

@madcat: sounds to me they do want to control the world. isnt illuminati the big people on top of us? is this a move to counter that?

i wonder if fotf goes to primary schools because MOE recently introduce their new sexuality education and it covers a lot of issues. not sure who they are outsourcing the training from. If it is from fotf……..

I am puzzled by the presences of “ex-gays” who conspicuously converted to Christianity. How do we square this with the current stance of reputable institutions that sexual orientation is an unchangeable trait?

Because the term “ex-gay” does not mean people who have become heterosexual. It means homosexual people who have gone deeper into denial that they are homosexual. There are plenty of stories about “ex-gays” later caught by media frequenting gay bars, hiring gay prostitutes, etc….. Then there are plenty of ex-ex-gays, who decide later that denial does not work, so they speak up and condemn the conversion therapy they had been subjected to.

Alex is not asking for FOTF to be disbanded or banned; he is asking that the authorities and govt recognise it for what it truly is, and to treat it te same way it would treat any other organisation of the same ilk. And just because FOTF does good works, that does excuse the fact that it does promote a ‘hate’ doctrine against a minority group of citizens. Are we suppose to continue closing one eye to its unsavoury aspect just becasue it does such good works? I don’t think so.

MCYS, and the govt, does itself no favours in its continued support for the organisation. Now that the culture and moral wars are beating FOTF back to its fundamentalist base, the authorities would be wise to back off from a losing battle.

it’s no surprise that FOTF try (halfheartedly maybe) to hide their true nature. according to the most recent PEW survey of evangelical protestant leaders, those in the “developed” world (“global north”) are more pessimistic about the future of evangelical christianity than those of undeveloped nations (“global south”). secular states and their populations are not fertile environments for ‘fundigelical’ views to take root…

funnily enough, the views of those leaders pertaining to what is ‘compatible’ and ‘incompatible’ with being a good fundy also change depending on where in the world they live. as one of jerry coyne’s readers says, maybe god is just confused?

(a). 47% reject the idea of evolution. 41% believe in “theistic evolution”, the notion that God has used evolution for the purpose of creating humans and other life (sometimes known as “intelligent design”). Only 3% believe that human life has evolved solely by natural processes with no involvement from a supreme being.

(b). 84% say homosexuality should be “discouraged” by society, 13% say it should be “accepted”, 4% gave no answer. However, the figures varied by geographical region. A majority of evangelical leaders (51%) from South and Central America answered that homosexuality should be accepted by society.

(c). 84% say religious leaders should express political views, 13% say they should not, while 3% gave no answer.

(d). 55% say a wife must always obey her husband. 41% disagree.

(e). 92% think that yoga is incompatible with being a “good evangelical”.

(f). 47% say Islam is a “major threat”, 34% say it is a “minor threat”, 16% say it is not a threat.

“41% believe in “theistic evolution”, the notion that God has used evolution for the purpose of creating humans and other life (sometimes known as “intelligent design”)”

“Intelligent Design” is different from Theistic Evolution. In US courts, we have Christian theistic evolutionalists joining other evolutionalists to fight against those Christians who want to promote “intelligent design” in schools.

/// As an example of the latter, virtually all reputable researchers in social science and neurology today agree that sexual orientation is an immutable trait — a hundred years of research has yet to produce a single instance where someone’s sexual orientation is shown to have changed — but the booklet insists that it is not a fixed trait. ///

Looks like the Hong Kong Social Welfare Department is also into “Fixing” Homosexuality in Hong Kong…..

They have a right to hold an opinion, but don’t have a right to defame members of a particular minority group (LGBTs) by spreading lies about them, if that’s what they are doing. Apart from damage to the reputation of members of the minority, and social consequences such as criminalisation, loss of employment, living in fear etc., it can also lead to anger and potential public disorder – violence against and murder of members of the LGBT community, as has chillingly been seen recently in some African countries, where violent homophobia has been fuelled by American evangelists and their local allies.

Your reference to abortion is not relevant. So far as I know there are no Baby Hate organisations that are preaching that babies are evil and so should be aborted, or publishing anti-baby leaflets such as “The Myths about Babies”.

The problem is that one man’s lie is another’s arguable point. To the FOTF, what you consider lies are points for debate. AND VICE VERSA! This then boils down to who has the power to interpret and enforce. When rules and laws are simple and clear, and room for interpretation limited, then that power matters a lot less.

Why do you think the ACLU – one of the most liberal organizations anyone can think of – has clients with extreme right wing views.

Poker Player, l’m not talking about differences in political or religious points of view. People can of course disagree, for example, about whether sin exists and what it is, or whether it is “sinful” for a gay couple to have a full and faithful lifelong loving relationship. The global head of the Anglican church does not consider that to be sinful, and has written a long document about it, but fundamentalists would probably disagree.

What I’m talking about is factual lies, defaming a minority, propaganda designed to whip up public antipathy or anger (incidentally, “wrongful speech” appears to be frowned on in both Christianity and Buddhism). An example would be the use of the “blood libel” against the Jewish people by European Christians for the purposes of persecuting them and driving them out. The propaganda was that Jews used the blood of Christian babies in their rituals. Such claims naturally bring about the primal fear of harm to children. SImilar propaganda is used against gays and gay-friendly NGOs and their efforts to educate people about the nature of being gay, particularly in Africa and the USA, but I’ve also seen it in postings in Singapore: that gay people are out to “convert our children”. One Singaporean post I saw claimed that as gay people can’t biologically reproduce, they are out to convert the children of heterosexuals. This is not point of view, it’s a propagandist lie. Factually untrue, not remotely possible, and highly offensive. It’s somewhat ironic when such claims are made by proselytising evangelicals. Maybe they are projecting.

Now, obviously some people that say these things genuinely believe them, they have no idea that it is propaganda, just as some people no doubt believed the blood libel against the Jews. Maybe then it becomes their point of view so far as they are concerned. However, they are still repeating lies that are causing physical and social harm to members of the group in question – and that in the past may have helped shape official policy regarding education, the media, and the criminal code.

In some countries such “hate speech” has had limitations placed on it, because it does a lot of harm. Whatever the framework, those defamed by such propaganda should have some recourse in law, either criminal or civil, to remedy the situation. As an openly gay person is an identifiable member of a group being defamed, he or she may already have a legal remedy in Singapore for clearly defamatory statements. Not having seen the leaflet in question though, I have no idea whether there is anything in it that is defamatory, hate speech, or whether it is just totally misleading.

The only time the law should intervene is when this exits the world of speech and ideas into the physical world of fragile human bodies.

” If so, what should we as a community do about it?”

Did you read the comments in response?

Freedom is neither free (as in beer) nor underwritten by an objectively fair authority. Because there is no such thing as an objectively fair authority. The only thing “objective” is the “authority” part.

Poker Player, are you saying the laws against defamation that exist around the globe should be abolished? That people should have no recourse for harm suffered because of lies broadcast or published about them? That untruthful propaganda that causes a section of the community to live in fear for their livelihood and/or safety should be allowed willy nilly? What about the psychological harm and alienation it can cause in particular to younger members of that community?

Granted, an internet discussion seems harmless enough, so long as it allows for lies to be confronted and shown up for what they are. Not all do, particularly some newspaper online discussions that are happy to publish homophobic comments, but not the counters to them.

What about the recent situation where a newspaper, having published the “blood libel” against gays, then published the photos and addresses of the “top 100 homos”, with the header “Hang Them!”. Even without that header it’s dangerous. In that case 3 of the victims got an injunction and damages, but then one of them, David Kato, was viciously murdered. Virtually the whole of that country appears to be in favour of the judicial slaughter of gay people, and silencing their protestations of innocence, as well as jailing anyone who defends them, largely because of the demonising propaganda originating from evangelicals in the USA. There is not much of an outlet there to contradict the lies, other than in a courtroom. If you had your way they would have no remedy at all.

Then we have the situation in Singapore, obviously nowhere near as extreme as the above scenario, but where, unlike Uganda, gay advocacy groups are already, according to YB, not allowed to register, ordinary gay characters are banned from TV and film, gay teachers are fired or pressured to resign, and gay political candidates are smeared with the same “blood libel” of wanting to corrupt/convert the young. Anything showing gays as normal happy people just living their lives is routinely panned, even by officials, as somehow “glamorising” or “promoting” a lifestyle, presumably on the basis of the evangelical propaganda that sexual orientation is a choice. It really doesn’t seem like a level playing field either. So any redress the law or the courts may offer to such demonising propaganda sounds like a really good thing, frankly.

“Then we have the situation in Singapore, obviously nowhere near as extreme as the above scenario, but where, unlike Uganda, gay advocacy groups are already, according to YB, not allowed to register, ordinary gay characters are banned from TV and film, gay teachers are fired or pressured to resign, and gay political candidates are smeared with the same “blood libel” of wanting to corrupt/convert the young. Anything showing gays as normal happy people just living their lives is routinely panned, even by officials, as somehow “glamorising” or “promoting” a lifestyle, presumably on the basis of the evangelical propaganda that sexual orientation is a choice. It really doesn’t seem like a level playing field either. So any redress the law or the courts may offer to such demonising propaganda sounds like a really good thing, frankly.”

I don’t know what you are doing here. My arguments imply that I am against freedom of expression of gays?

You have not answered any of the points I raised. I have not raised a straw man argument. Your vague and unexplained reference to ACLU does not assist the discussion. My final paragraph is clear enough, but look up “level playing field”.

Unpopular minorities have little or no facility to counter propagandist lies such as the “blood libel” against them, may have few supporters among “honest citizens”, and erroneous and damaging beliefs grow and end up leading to violence and murder of members of the group, along with criminalisation, ethnic cleansing, and so forth. This is real, it is happening every day. It’s not some hypothetical scenario.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but your position appears to be that there should be no legal right to prevent such defamatory propaganda being circulated. If so, what is your remedy for the wronged minority? Being able to post on YB or similar?

They may, if they are lucky and have access to the internet, be able to answer propaganda against them in unmoderated discussion boards, which may be as close as they can get to a level playing field. Even then they may be drowned out by the majority, or by astroturfing by religious or political extremists.

Now, bringing the discussion to the leaflet in question. While we don’t know its contents, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it is subtle propagandist hate literature for the purpose of marginalising LGBTs and that it contains blatant lies about them. Say it has been distributed to tens of thousands of people who believe it. You have no access to newspapers, TV, churches, or mass media to counter the propaganda. Specific protections that other groups have, exclude you. You may, just may, have some legal recourse for defamation in the Courts if you are lucky. But you are against this because it offends your belief that such people should be free to say what they like about LGBT’s no matter how false and damaging.

An obvious answer to the problem would be proper education on the subject. But in the case of gays, that is banned as “normalising”, ” glamorising” or “promoting” homosexuality, so entrenched is the religious propaganda, so unlevel is the playing field.

Where exactly are all your “honest citizens voicing their opprobrium” ? Not here, for sure. Not in the churches where the leaflet was distributed. Not being published in the newspapers I would guess.

In those circumstances, looking into a legal response and checking the charity regulations seems like a wise course of action.

A quick check on wiki suggests that FOTF (sg) is an IPC, which gives large tax benefits. The Charities Act regulations of 2007 state:

Conditions for approval of institution of a public character 3. —(1) An institution or fund may be approved as an institution of a public character if it satisfies the following conditions:
….
(c) its activities are exclusively beneficial to the community in Singapore as a whole and are not confined to sectional interests or groups of persons based on race, belief or religion.

This raises the question of whether the production of the leaflet and its distribution to churches is within the scope of permitted activities of an IPC.

I received an email that ducks the question of whether what FOTF is doing is right/wrong, honourable/dishonourable.

Instead, it insults me by trying to convert me to this email writer’s religion. Why is it an insult? Because it demeans my own religious views by suggesting that I have not found anything of (eternal) value while he has, that my religious views are not as worthy as his. Far from respecting my right to my spiritual and religious views, it attempts to foist his upon me.

The worst thing is that this kind of thing happens all the time in hospitals to people far more vulnerable than me — I’ve seen it with my own eyes. And no, there never is any political will by the authorities to put a stop to it, just as they will close an eye to fundies insinuating themselves into our secular public schools.

QUOTE (the email received)

I refer to your article “FOTF reveals fundamentalist agenda in latest
anti-gay campaign”.
Let me state clearly I am a Christian and know homosexuals on a personal basis.
Whether FOTF uses shady tactics or has hidden agendas, I believe God
will reveal to them one day. I believe there is a God and He is
omniscient. No one or organisation can cover their hidden aims from
God.

I would love to invite you to read the Bible with an objective and
impartial heart, mind, soul and spirit and search this loving God for
yourself. As a reader of your blog, I hope you can receive this
wonderful blessing. All humans wll die a physical death one day, no
one can ensure whether we will be alive the next moment. All we do in
this life will end when we go. I sincerely hope you can find something
eternal in your search for life’s grand purpose.

/// Can he will his hair to revert back to the same colour as when he was a child? ///

Alex, I remember someone correcting you on the wrong use of revert. While we are at it, you should not use “back” with revert – it is superfluous. Revert is to go back to the former form/position/state. Another typical Singaporean mistake is “return back”.

Tangential to this article, I would like to point out that I’ve always felt that the “born this way” argument was a terribly weak one, Lady Gaga notwithstanding.

Immutability is not the correct response to the Christian fundie. The correct response is: “It’s none of your f-ing beeswax!”.

Let me explain. Take psychopaths. It can be argued that they are also “born that way”. Serial killers have to kill. They can’t help it. Their trait of irrepressible bloodlust is immutable. The brain is wired “left”. But what’s the difference between Hannibal Lecter and Steven “Kylie” Tan? For one, people don’t like to be killed, but some guys actually do like doing the “Locomotion” with Steven “Kylie” Tan.

I agree that the argument for gay equality should not be based on the immutability argument. Sexual orientation should be recognised as a protected right simply because it is a deeply personal and important facet of one’s sense of self. The same way religious belief is protected even though religious choice (and I stress CHOICE) is mutable — one can change religion at will.

However, when the fundies raise the falsehood that sexual orientation is choice, then that falsehood needs to be slapped down.

ExGayWatch have a reference to a booklet with the same/similar name they say was produced in 2007 by COOS. It no longer appears to be available in the COOS resources section of their website though. It was reported at that time that there was a connection between FOTF and certain people attending COOS. Do you think its possible FOTF have taken it over as COOS don’t want to be associated with it anymore?

The relevance of choice at sex orientation is that the issue of moral responsibility then arises. That does not necessarily mean that choosing homosexuality is wrong. But it opens the debate to its possibility, just like when one abuses the freedom of worship by choosing, say, a “jihadist” terrorist sect.

So it may be argued, say, that “choosing” homosexuality has the consequence of endangering the continuation of the family and the race, etc. (Just an example; haven’t thought this through.)

From your very first word, everything that you say is premised on the assumption that there is choice involved when it comes to sexual orientation. Please get it into your head: there is no choice involved. Your assumption is plain wrong. Therefore everything you say is rubbish. What you’re trying to do is to repeat a lie (the starting assumption) often enough until people start believing it.

Not to stray into an argument about moral basis or meta-ethics, but I’m willing to grant you your assumption, unlike Alex, and still show you how your entire line of argument is rubbish.

“So it may be argued, say, that “choosing” singlehood/career/celibacy/priesthood has the consequence of endangering the continuation of the family and the race, etc.”

So unless we are also willing to argue that people who do not like coupling, who are very driven to build their career at the cost of their social life, who do not like doing the “Locomotion” with anyone, or who wish to devote their life to whatever pie in the sky they believe in should not, your argument is utter rubbish.

I think Tai Wei is just saying that choice is still a relevant issue from others’ perspective. If one can convince others that homosexuality is not a choice, then they can’t blame homosexuals for choosing to lead an anti-“family” lifestyle, just like they can’t blame an infertile couple for not bearing a child (they can blame those who choose to focus on their careers for all we care).

Except their perspective is wrong. Whether you can blame someone for some action does not change the fact of whether an act is right or wrong, lawful or unlawful, should be restricted or not.

“I couldn’t help it” is not a valid excuse if a psychopath wishes to continue killing people.

The reason why we need to restrict the psychopath is because society as a whole is quite unanimous that murder is harmful, and have many and strong reasons to promote an aversion to it regardless of whether the psychopath can or cannot cease his desire to commit murder again.

So the argument then becomes whether or not homosexuality itself is harmful. And as I mentioned before, we can demonstrate this by comparing homosexuality to other acts we consider “harming the family and marriage”, and whether or not we as a society feel that those acts are also harmful enough to warrant restriction/moral condemnation.

Policy makers can always justify restrictions on homosexuals to prevent its further “spread” or “promotion” if it is framed as an individual lifestyle choice (since more people can be influenced to become homosexuals if so). Not reproducing future generations can be argued (by others) to be harmful to the sustainability and well-being of the society in the long term, thus justifying the restrictions on the spread of homosexuality in society, even if homosexuality can be argued to be less harmful to the individual families compared to other social issues such as gambling, prostitution and infidelity, at least in the short-term. However, if people are assured that homosexuality is not a choice and it only affects a minority (5%?) of the population, then the concern about the long term negative consequences of not restricting homosexuality may be alleviated. An increased understanding of this fact supported by scientific evidence may explain why other places are increasingly accepting of homosexuals. Hence the continued relevance of establishing/clarifying whether homosexuality is a choice (at least to others who still think that it is).

You are trying to create moral equivalence between the two. It’s as ridiculous as trying to suggest moral equivalence between anti-Nazism and the Nazis’ anti-jewish campaign.

And nowhere am I anti-Christian. If you think that calling attention to an extreme fringe of the Christian faith (what some have called the Christian jihadists) is an attack on all Christianity, then it only reveals the conceit of the fringe. What I am pointing out in the article is
(a) a fundamentalism-motivated group is engaging in deceit as to its true intentions
(b) its aims (conversion therapy) are considered socially harmful and disreputable by professionals
(c) its dogma ultimately demands denial of empirical knowledge
(d) beneath its homophobia is a yearning for male dominance over women

Seriously, would any subset of a religion subscribing to (a) to (d) be worth subscribing to? Does it deserve any respect at all?

Does Christianity in the main hold (a) to (d) as essential to the faith? I don’t think so. A true Christian would hardly feel threatened by my criticisms, because that’s not what he believes in. Therefore, the post is not anti-Christian at all.

There is another difference. The gay interest in and opposition to fundamentalism, is rooted in the fundamentalist campaign against homosexuality. Take that away, homosexuals as a community, have no interest in what fundamentalists do in public or in the bedroom.

You can’t say the same for the fundamentalist interest in the homosexual community.

So, no pots, no kettles.

Christians as a community were once almost universally persecuted. There is now another community with laws specifically targeted against them. What should be the Christian response?

Matthew 18:27-28:

Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

Alex said that defence of homosexuality need not rest upon “immutability” of sexual orientation. I agreed, but only added the reminder that the issue whether there could be choice of the orientation, and therefore “mutability”, isn’t irrelevant to the discussion. For if there could be choice, then moral responsibility for one’s choosing arises. I then used that contention about homosexual choice affecting marriage and family only to illustrate such possible responsibility. I detached myself from that view when I said I hadn’t thought it through.

That was all I was trying to do, ie. clarify the logic of the argument, rather than saying anything substantive myself.

Many of them had committed suicide and gay have to live life not being themselves and endure insults and discrimination from the straights.

Don’t you know that sexuality is so varied in human ranging from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual to Transgendered? Even among the Bi, it varies widely among individual in the orientation towards male/female.

Mr. Tan Tai Wei, Using your EQ and Just take yourself and your straight friends for examples. Are you and they can choose to be sexually attracted by the same sex and actually have sex with them? Straights may find it disgusting so do the gays if asked to have sex with girls. Then how do you describe the disgust the straights have the thought of having sex with girl not to their taste, like too thin/fat/ugly?

There is something in you that decide your orientation. Ever tried asking yourself why you don’t find man sexually attractive and gays do when its so disgusting to you?

Its so stupid to argue that its more pleasurable with one sex over the other.

Now do you know why gay don’t find a girl’s body and soul attractive as sex partner? Or do you know why you are a straight and that not all girls are sexually attractive to you?

While the Bi can choose when to have sex with between man/women, he/she can’t choose Bi-sexual orientation.

You are right, Daniel. Anyway, having been kept on it has made my thinking more precise.

The crux of it all is choice.

Whether homosexuality is “immutable” or “mutable”, there is choice whether or not, and how to practice it.

So, if immutable (however that has come about, whether genetic or otherwise acquired), there is choice, say, to abstain, just like heterosexuals too can, and ought to abstain under certain circumstances.

If “mutable” (probably not the ability to just choose to change – here I agree entirely with Singlish SEX}, then there is the choice, say, to undergo “therapy”(assuming that is feasible)or otherwise for change.

The difficulty of the choice would differ from one case to another, and so the degree of responsibility for the consequences would correspondingly differ.

So, even though we must agree today that homo or hetero sexuality is not chosen and is immutable, and so, the orientation itself is not praise nor blame worthy, its practice is. For there is the option to abstain.

Whether to abstain or not, and, if not, how to conduct the practice, will depend upon how it all measure by such moral and pragmatic yardsticks as justice, love, respect for persons (both visavis the homo and hetero sexual, and others) and public welfare, both short and long term.

(I am only trying to set the framework for discussion of the issue. My own conclusion would be in sympathy with the unfairly and unlovingly, therefore unchristianly treated minority.)

“But you have the choice to abstain from practice” — this is another insidious line of attack. Why highlight choice in such a way as to suggest that the choice to abstain is “desirable”? Why should any gay person even be faced with pressure however subtle to abstain? It boils down to the way such speakers implicitly assign a lower moral value on homosexual ORIENTATION, such that they think people OUGHT to abstain and then go about suggesting that people might want to consider abstaining in the hope that they’d abstain. Placing such a “choice” forward when it is never EQUALLY FREQUENTLY placed with the same implicit pressure and unspoken moral disapproval before a heterosexual person is an attempt to erase gay people and their equal worth.

How about the choice to opt for one activity or lifestyle over the other? If you subscribe to the belief of the sexuality spectrum, or at least the existence of bisexuals, then the menu is much wider for the typical ‘confused individual.’

To think deeper about the concept of choice, it bears reflecting about the growing gender imbalance that still exists in our world today.

Any individual Indian family sees the ‘practical’ advantage of choosing boys over girls; the cost-benefits can be evaluated in a seemingly objective, rational fashion; but bear in mind: this objectivity is framed in that particular social system or ‘market.’

Would you be able to gain a whole new different perspective by assuming, the crux of it all is ‘the market’?

“Moderate homosexuals are representative of most homosexual people”
Any guesses on what this line means? FOTF or whoever wrote this, you can’t even make sense in your sentences to get your point across..

I would have thought, Alex, that the pressure to stop, say, heterosexual promiscuity is often greater than homosexual. For the latter would not come with the risk, say of unwarranted and unwanted pregnancies, and aids happen equally at both sorts of encounters.

do you honestly think there is more pressure on heteros to abstain? you’re either obfuscating or dense.

although, there is one major community in which hetero abstinence is encouraged – religious groups:

the silver/promise ring program in the ‘states, run by – you guessed it – fundigelical christians, tries to prevent teens from accessing real sex education and replace it with a blinkered naive “promise” to not have sex until married. [un]funnily enough, teens in the program have higher rates of STIs and pregnancy than those that receive proper classroom based sex-ed. a case of blind faith causing untold amounts of damage (pain, shame, fear, problems conceiving in the future etc) when rational, evidence-based methods have been shown to work.

oh, the other community that are ‘pressured’ to be abstinent are priests. but just try telling the girls and boys that were raped, and then had their attackers sheltered by the church, that forced abstinence is a good thing. oh, and a priest is 100 times more likely to be a sex offender than a member of the general public.

Insightful as this piece is, it still pretty much is preaching to the choir. The people who needs to know their actions are intrusive, offensive and repulsive will never read this blog and come to understand.

Ashingami – you may be mistaken about the aim of writing. It is not to win the diehard anti-gay ones over. It is to ensure that the vaster number of people who are reasonable, logical and fair-minded are not taken in by the disinformation spread by Rightwing Political Christianity. That’s why it is important to pick apart every little absurd argument they make, to demolish every myth they present as fact.

As shown in every country where gay people and their friends have waged this slow-and-steady information campaign, progress may be imperceptible over the short term, but dramatic over the long term.

“Cowen and Truong bought newspaper ads and rented a toll-free number. Worried about spooking young mothers, they hired an answering service to explain to callers that they were a gay couple.They were surprised to find that many didn’t care.”

Gays should be given more help. They are already so deep in the warped perverted mindsets and they don’t need more hostility which only serves to drive them to more and more extreme behaviour.

Or even the quiet ones, what are you doing to help them? They are just as, if not even more sad as it is a deep sadness which they think they can cover up if let alone to live their gay life.

At the heart of it is love. Everyone loves. It is human to love. It is when they let lust overcome a healthy chaste love when it all starts to fall apart.

Why do anti-gay canpaigners push so hard. It is because they care about the happiness of people and their ability to love chastely and happily. It is because they care about the happiness of children and those whose thoughts are more susceptible to falling into the trap that the gay life is a good life. They want a free and healthy environment where children can grow up surrounded in the love of the family.

The gay lifestyle happily carries the alternative tag. What it seeks is to present ‘another way’ to happiness and fulfilment. Another way to what? The true love, warmth and care provided by the natural family.

That is terrible, sad and insidious in itself – yet now they seek to normalise it. If you let them down now by supporting this lifestyle and not standing against it, your ‘love’ for them is equally short sighted and misguided.

Think about it. Have you helped a gay today? Have you been there for them to slowly to guide them back with true light and love or have you stood by saying yeah its for them and not for me but I choose to live and let live.

Do you not care for this person whom you profess a friend? Or have you fallen for the trap of the ‘alternative’? Or are you simply taking the path of least resistance and going with whatever influences you easiest. What care you show your friend then…

Think carefully about your own lifestyle, which serves as a good indicator for why you would support the gay agenda or sit by passively while the hurt and sadness enters into the mainstream and begins to systematically hurt the innocent.

Is this a spoof? If so it’s quite a good one, illustrating nicely many of the subtle and not so subtle defamations we’ve been talking about, phrased in a pseudo-caring passive-aggressive way. It even contains the infamous “What about the children!!” blood libel, semi disguised, but still there.

On a general note, I wonder who is happier: the happy, smiling, loving couples with supportive relatives at the Pink Dot, who have found the person they love or are enjoying the search, or the lonely ones who have been so filled with guilt by some pastor that they have given up hope of finding their true love or having any sex life, but who find a strange solace in trying to make everyone else as miserable as they are.

I am a born again Christian. Many evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists do NOT consider true Christianity to be a “religion” or themselves to be “religious”. True Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus, about accepting Christ as Savior through faith, not about performing the rituals and participating in the institutions of organized “religion”. Focus on the Family, by this definition, is NOT a “religious organization”. You may or may not agree with this view of religion, but for your information this is where born-again evangelical and fundamentallst Christians are coming from.